Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 164
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 6566 of 2007
Manjeet Singh
v.
Smt. Reena
{Decided on 21/01/2009}
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Kunal Chhoker, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Exparte order--It is not expected that litigent would leave things completely in hands of counsel and would not like to stay in touch with what is going on at trial.
Headnote:Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Exparte decree--Setting aside of--Wife duly served and entered appearance through a counsel and person as well--She was hotly contesting petition--Thus, she knew the fact of pendency of petition--Contention that she stayed away from proceedings on advice of her counsel who informed her that her presence was not required--Not tenable--It is not expected that litigent would leave things completely in hands of counsel and would not like to stay in touch with what is going on at trial--Even otherwise, certified copy of exparte judgment and decree delivered on 22.8.2006 and application filed under Order 9, Rule filed on 8.9.2006--Facts apparent enough to indicate that wife was not acting bonafide in entire context--Impugned exparte decree of divorce cannot be set aside--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13--Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13. (Paras 9,10,11 & 12 )
CASES CITED:
1. K.Ganesan v. Sukunthalal, 2001(2) Apex Court Journal 396 (S.C.) (Para 6)
2. Ranjeet Kumar v. Sarla Devi, 1989 Civil Court Cases 479 (Rajasthan) (Para 6)
3. Pravinchandra v. Murli Agro Products Ltd., 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 614 (Bombay) (Para 6)
4. Rajesh Kumar v. Des Raj Arora, 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 708 (P&H) (Para 6)
5. Veerpal Kaur v. Rashpal Singh, 2006(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2293 (Para 6)
S.D.Anand, J.:-The petitioner is in revision against the order dated 6.10.2007 vide which the learned Trial Judge set aside the exparte decree dated 7.6.2006.
2. The circumstances, relevant for disposal of the controversy may be indicated hereunder in the first instance:-
The petitioner-husband Manjeet Singh filed a plea under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to obtain dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife who (respondent wife) entered appearance (through her learned counsel), for the first time, on 28.1.2005 and the matter was adjourned to 17.2.2005 for the presence of the parties in the context of making of reconciliation endeavour. On the adjourned date, the petitioner-husband appeared but the wife did not appear. Her brother turned up and informed the Court that she was unwell. The matter was adjourned to 3.3.2005. On that date too, the respondent wife was not present and the matter was adjourned to 28.3.2005 for production of the parties. On that date, the parties are not noticed to have appeared to have appeared. However, a duly engaged counsel appeared on behalf of the wife and the matter was adjourned to 11.4.2005 for the presence of the parties for effecting reconciliation. The wife did not appear on 11.4.2005. Ultimately, both the parties appeared in person (with their respective counsel) on 28.4.2005. The Court noticed that reconciliation efforts had been made but there was no fruitful result thereof. The matter was adjourned to 26.5.2005 for filing of written statement. On filing of written statement on 2.9.2005, the matter was adjourned to 29.9.2005 for filing of replication and framing of issues. After the issues came to be framed on 29.9.2005, the matter was adjourned to 17.11.2005 for the evidence of the petitioner-husband. No evidence was present on that date and the matter was adjourned to 1.2.2006. On that date (i.e. 17.11.2005) the respondent appeared in the Court in person. On 1.2.2006 too the respondent-wife appeared in person. Two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner-respondent were present. There was a request for adjournment by the respondent-wife on the plea that her counsel was not available on that date. The matter was adjourned to 23.3.2006 subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs. It was made clear in the order that it would be for the respondent-wife to ensure the presence of her counsel or else evidence shall be recorded in the absence of her counsel. On 23.3.2006, the costs of adjournment (imposed on 1.2.2006) were paid. Two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were present but could not be examined as the respondent-wife filed an application for adjournment as her counsel was unwell. The matter was adjourned to 24.4.2006. None appeared on behalf of the respondent on that date through out the day and exparte proceedings were ordered against her. The matter was adjourned to 7.6.2006 for recording of exparte evidence of the petitioner. On the adjourned date, the exparte evidence adduced by the petitioner-husband was recorded, arguments were heard and the petition was allowed exparte.
3. The respondent-wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. on 8.9.2006. As the plea filed was apparently time barred, the respondent-wife applied for condonation of delay by averring that grant of exparte decree came to her notice on 20.8.2006 only when “a common relative of the parties who told the respondent that the petitioner has obtained an exparte divorce against the respondent”. She applied for the certified copies of judgment and decree on 24.8.2006. The copies were supplied to her on 28.8.2006. It was on perusal thereof that it came to her notice that her counsel did not enter appearance on 24.8.2006. Further averment is that she had been told by her counsel that she need not appear in person and whenever her presence is required, she would be informed accordingly. The plea raised thereby is that she refrained from appearing
